Darrisaw v. Interfaith: Conflicting Expert Testimony Bars Dismissal

Janice Darrisaw was admitted multiple times to Interfaith Medical Center beginning in January 2015 for shortness of breath and possible aspiration pneumonia. She suffered from several conditions, including pressure ulcers, and was treated for these conditions during each admission. Her hospitalizations also included treatment for sepsis, respiratory distress, and hypotension. In January 2016, she died at the hospital.

In January 2018, Edmon Darrisaw, as administrator of Janice Darrisaw’s estate, filed a lawsuit against a rehabilitation facility alleging negligence, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and violations of New York Public Health Law. That case alleged failures in preventing pressure ulcers during the period of November 2012 to November 2015. In June 2018, a separate lawsuit was filed against Interfaith Medical Center, alleging negligence and medical malpractice in the period of November 17, 2015, through January 18, 2016, again citing failures in preventing pressure ulcers.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court

Interfaith Medical Center moved for summary judgment to dismiss the medical malpractice claims. Alternatively, the hospital sought dismissal of claims for alleged malpractice occurring before December 14, 2015, as time-barred, and requested consolidation with the earlier case involving the rehabilitation facility.

The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied those branches of the hospital’s motion. The court found that the hospital had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment through its expert physician, who opined that the care provided did not depart from accepted medical practice and that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of injury. However, the plaintiff submitted an expert physician’s affirmation stating that the hospital failed to reposition the decedent as frequently as required. The court determined that these conflicting expert opinions raised triable issues of fact, making summary judgment inappropriate.

The court also rejected the hospital’s argument that claims before December 14, 2015, were time-barred. It applied the continuous treatment doctrine, which tolls the statute of limitations until the end of a continuous course of treatment for the same condition. The court concluded that factual issues remained as to whether the decedent’s care constituted continuous treatment.

Finally, the court denied consolidation of the hospital case with the earlier action against the rehabilitation facility. It found that the two cases involved different procedural stages and that consolidation would risk confusion and prejudice.

Appellate Division Review

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. It agreed that conflicting expert testimony prevented summary judgment, that the continuous treatment doctrine potentially tolled the limitations period, and that denial of consolidation was a proper exercise of discretion given the dissimilarities in procedural posture.

Court’s Decision

The Appellate Division upheld the Supreme Court’s order, allowing the claims against Interfaith Medical Center to proceed to trial.

Medical Malpractice Legal Support

If you have experienced harm from medical negligence or errors in treatment, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with cases involving medical malpractice. Reach out to contact us to learn how our team can help with your case.